Blog Stats

Posts Tagged ‘Kris Murray’

Virtually every political analysis of the City of Anaheim references the split between Anaheim Hills and the Flatlands.

A closer look at the 2014 election results confirms that split – but in counterintuitive fashion. Mayor Tom Tait won 61.7% of the Anaheim Hills vote in his re-election bid but less than half the vote in the Flatlands, though even then, this is a 42.5% victory margin for Tait in Anaheim Hills versus 24.1% in the Flatlands. Lucille Kring beat Lorri Galloway by 6.4% in Anaheim Hills, but Galloway beat Kring by 5.1% in the Flatlands.

In fairness to Kring, she scored fairly consistently across the city with only a 0.3% differential in Hills versus Flatlands. The big difference was for Galloway whose Flatland votes were nearly double the percentage of her votes in the Hills, with 24.6% in the Flatlands versus 12.8% in the Hills.

More intuitively, three of the candidates did better where they live than the other part of town: Kring and Fitzgerald did better on their home turf in the Flatlands while Tait did better in the Hills, where he lives. It looks like Galloway’s neighbors don’t like her, as she is an Anaheim Hills resident but did far better in the Flatlands than the Hills.

Anaheim Hills

Tom Tait

9945

61.7%

Lucille Kring

3093

19.2%

Lorri Galloway

2071

12.8%

Denis Fitzgerald

1018

6.3%

Flatlands

Tom Tait

14171

48.7%

Lorri Galloway

7164

24.6%

Lucille Kring

5664

19.5%

Denis Fitzgerald

2072

7.1%

Anaheim Hills vs. Flatlands

Tom Tait

+13.0%

Lorri Galloway

-11.8%

Lucille Kring

-0.3%

Denis Fitzgerald

-0.8%

Flatlander James Vanderbilt was the top vote-getter for City Council in Anaheim Hills; he came in third in the Flatlands behind Hills resident Kris Murray and Flatlander Gail Eastman. The first through third place spread of Murray, Eastman, and Vanderbilt was 2% in the Hills and 1.1% in the Flatlands. Nevertheless, Vanderbilt beat Eastman in Anaheim Hills by 333 votes while Eastman beat Vanderbilt in the Flatlands by 130 votes, thereby giving Vanderbilt his 203-vote citywide victory.

Anaheim Hills

James D. Vanderbilt

3719

22.8%

Kris Murray

3674

22.6%

Gail Eastman

3386

20.8%

Doug Pettibone

1810

11.1%

Jose F. Moreno (1)

1492

9.2%

Jerry O’Keefe

1399

8.6%

Donna Michelle Acevedo

502

3.1%

Jose Moreno (2)

303

1.9%

Flatlands

Kris Murray

12533

20.2%

Gail Eastman

11952

19.3%

James D. Vanderbilt

11822

19.1%

Jose F. Moreno (1)

10029

16.2%

Doug Pettibone

5499

8.9%

Jerry O’Keefe

4845

7.8%

Donna Michelle Acevedo

2686

4.3%

Jose Moreno (2)

2673

4.3%

Anaheim Hills vs. Flatlands

James D. Vanderbilt

+3.7%

Kris Murray

+2.4%

Gail Eastman

+1.5%

Jose F. Moreno (1)

-7.0%

Doug Pettibone

+2.2%

Jerry O’Keefe

+0.8%

Donna Michelle Acevedo

-1.2%

Jose Moreno (2)

-2.4%

The number that jumps out is Jose F. Moreno’s 7% gap in the Hills. (Either way, though, Moreno fell 3% short of the top two slots in both the Hills and the Flatlands.) While at first, some might instinctively claim race as the reason for his 7% drop in the Hills, but before the polls closed, Matt Cunningham at Anaheim Blog found a more innocuous reason: the old-fashioned hard work of campaigning. The title of Cunningham’s blog and the photo he showed from Moreno’s campaign office explain it all, so here they are: “Jose Moreno Campaign Ignoring Anaheim Hills”

In this photo, the Moreno campaign’s office door literally shut out Anaheim Hills.

Measure L, the vote-by-district measure, won by an unexpectedly large margin. It was widely expected that the measure would have a tough time in Anaheim Hills. It did not, but Anaheim Hills did support it by a weaker margin than the Flatlands did, so in the Anaheim split did go with expectations, rather than against them, but simply in a negligible percentage. Measure L won 64% of Anaheim Hills votes while it won 72% in the Flatlands.

Measure L

Anaheim Hills

Flatlands

Yes

10213

64%

20660

72%

No

5750

36%

8231

28%

Measure M, the measure to grow the City Council by two seats, won in unexpectedly close fashion. In the Flatlands, it won 56% of the vote while in Anaheim Hills, it won with a much closer 51% of the vote.

Eric Woolery to Dominate Mail in Auditor-Controller Election
with 1.5 Million Pieces

ORANGE COUNTY, CA – Orange Treasurer Eric Woolery announced today that he has locked up the major county election mail slates in his campaign for Auditor-Controller, which will carry his message to voters on 1.5 million pieces of mail. Based on prior election results for Auditor-Controller and current voter turnout models, nearly 350,000 voters are expected to cast their ballots in this election for Auditor-Controller. Securing the slates will ensure that Woolery’s message will be heard by every high propensity voter several times before the June 3 election.

“Becoming Auditor-Controller is my goal, and I aim to win. I have been planning my campaign for many months when I strategically began securing slates and endorsements while implementing other key tactics,” Woolery said. “Using my technical skills honed over 20 years as a CPA in both the public and private sectors leaves me ready to competently lead our county. Currently, the Auditor-Controller’s office is missing opportunities to ensure proactive and efficient uses of taxpayer dollars.”

Several key endorsers have also jumped on board the campaign, giving him additional momentum as the filing deadline nears. Over the past several days, five major Orange County leaders have endorsed Woolery for the Auditor-Controller position:

Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey

Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait

Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray

La Habra Councilman Tim Shaw

These distinguished local officials join a lengthy bipartisan list of elected officials providing their full support to Woolery, as he continues to hone his strategic plan for victory in this countywide race:

The OCGOP held it’s monthly meeting last night at the (newly renamed) Hotel Irvine (Fka the Irvine Hyatt). The speakers for the evening were Lucille Kring and Kris Murray. These council members have been under attack for their vote on permitting hotel developers to have a rebate on the Transient Occupancy Tax, (TOT) once and if the hotels are built by the developers. This issue came before the council in 2012 and the council was split 2-3. More important is the May 2013 vote, when the issue was again considered and the vote was 4-1, Mayor Tom Tait being the only vote against the rebate.

The other hot topic of discussion was the ongoing negotiations with the Angels to extend their contract with Anaheim.

We heard over and over again from Kring and Murray that these were “complicated” issues. It seemed to me they had forgotten that their audience for the evening were 1) Grown-up people whom have all presumably stayed at a Hotel at some point in their lives, 2) Live in Orange County and know a few things about the Angels and Arte Moreno and 3) Are all politicians of one ilk or another.

It’s not complicated. It is not new math. It is not brain surgery or rocket science, but here’s the message they delivered.

Kris Murray beat the drum of unity of the City Council, indicating they were all in agreement on this and that and a whole bunch of other things. It is noteworthy, that the Central Committee meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend, and in general, whomever is speaking is also not a secret. It would seem to behoove good local Republican politicians to know what the goings on are in their county’s Central Committee, particularly when a monthly meeting might be featuring one of their cohorts on their own council. Mayor Tom Tait was a guest speaking at the meeting just a few months ago. He delivered a very different message. His message was that he stood alone fighting the battle of fiscal conservativism on the Anaheim City Council. The 4-1 vote in favor of extending tax rebates (TOT’s) to hotel developers (Tait was the only dissenter) seems to bolster this claim by Mayor Tait.

Ms. Murray went on to discuss the “complicated” issues arising in the negotiations with the Angels over extending their contract with Anaheim. She emphasized the long history of the partnership of the city and the team, (no mention of the protracted litigation over the name just a few years ago) and the huge risk to the city should the Angels decide to up and move to a nearby city that will build them a new stadium, such as happened in Atlanta. She prepared a Power Point but time constraints did not permit her to go through it. She was kind enough to email it to the Central Committee members today for our review. It was interesting in that the Power Point contained one map of the United States that showed the teams that are receiving substantial subsidies from their city. These included four teams, Seattle Mariners, Arizona Diamondbacks, Washington Nationals, and Tampa Bay Rays. Each are purported to be receiving in excess of $300 million dollars in facilities funding. She emphasized that the city “makes” money on the Angels franchise in that it brings people to the area who support local retail and hotels. There are 30 MLB teams, there was no information or statistics on the averages, or any other variations, only the four teams getting subsidy’s of $300 million or more.

Tom Tait, when he recently appeared before the Committee, had argued that the city was not making money on the current deal with the Angels, and that the Angels were in essence being provided “free rent”. The Orange County register in September reported that over the past 16years that the current agreement has been in place, the city made money in nine of those years, and lost money in the past seven, for a net loss of $52,000.00. A sports/business expert interviewed by the Register called it an “irrelevant” loss. Tom Tait’s demeanor on that evening, was emotional, self serving, and desperate to convey to us that he was fighting the good fight and holding the line as a fiscal conservative. From that initial perspective to the message of last night, it is clear to see the emotionality in this divided Council. If Council Members Kring and Murray accomplished anything last night, it was to explain the emotionality and bolster the credibility of Mayor Tom Tait.

Lucille Kring discussed the TOT. This has been widely debated and criticized as the “$158 million dollar give away”. She went on into a lengthy discussion and explanation of the TOT, of the fact that in the ‘90’s some hotels chose to build in Garden Grove instead of Anaheim, because of such tax advantages, and that Garden Grove at that time gave away free land. She failed to note that those Garden Grove hotels have undergone several ownership changes since they were built. No discussion of whether the lack of success of those hotels has to do with the lack of proximity to Disneyland. She also noted that travelers frequently choose to stay in “four star” hotels in beach cities. There was no discussion of what these proposed hotels getting the TOT rebates would be, but one report was that the plan was for a three story structure. If that is what is proposed, that’s not a luxury hotel. She was terribly condescending in her repeated statements that the “city is not writing a check”. Well, maybe not now, but if this is indeed a “rebate”, that is exactly what the city will do. Again, she seemed to forget her audience, and stayed firm on her position that it was just too much for us to understand, and that if only we understood we would see what a great idea it was. She further, had great difficulty in admitting that she campaigned on representations that she would not support such tax breaks fro developers. Only after several questions from the typically forceful Debra Pauley, and then after the same question was restated by Chairman Baugh did Ms. Kring ultimately, finally admit that she “only discussed that with a few people, yes.”. She continued to assert that it was never stated in her “campaign materials”.

As public servants, both of these women serve our community at a substantial sacrifice to themselves, and nowhere could this be more appreciated than by this audience of public servants. However, in taking up the cloak of leadership, credibility, responsibility and message are relevant. Local politics is a blood sport and it appears they have engaged in this battle essentially unarmed. Overall, both Council Members were unconvincing in their message that everything is coming up roses in Anaheim and there is peace and harmony and that campaign promises are alive and well all around the Council Chambers in Anaheim. When Ms. Kring made the statement regarding her “campaign materials”, she turned away from the audience to face Chairman Baugh and spoke very softly. Nevertheless, it garnered an audible sigh from the audience.

There are a number of business people in Anaheim who support the Hotel deal, even though the most vociferous discussion on this TOT vote has been negative. Maybe there is a really good economic policy behind this and maybe it will ultimately be a wonderful outcome and bring business and revenue to the city, but we did not hear anything that sounded like that. There was a recurring excuse from both the speakers that these actions are similar to actions that have been taken before. That “well they did it back then” attitude and theme was as unpersuasive as every other part of the presentation.

Neither one of them appeared to believe in what they were selling. They were well prepared, rehearsed, polished and articulate and said what they came to say, but it was weak and unconvincing to say the least. If they believed in what they were doing, had absolute confidence in the positions they have taken on these issues, then there should have been no reason to sidestep actions contrary to campaign promises or to deny the obvious and well documented division among the council. This is certainly the wrong room to come to and be timid, apologetic,defensive, or untruthful.

In litigation we have a saying for silly or non-meritorious arguments, “That dog don’t hunt”. In the public forum as well as the political gathering last night, not only do these positions and policies “not hunt”, these politicians now and in their re-election bids will continue to be the hunted if they persist on a platform of excuses and half truths.

The protracted issue regarding how Anaheim councilmembers are elected has come to an end but with a steep price.

Councilmembers Kris Murray and Gail Eastman has cost the taxpayers of Anaheim at a tune of $2 Million.

The City of Anaheim has already racked up $1.2 Million to defend itself and now must bear the cost of paying the litigants legal bills of over $1 Million, the ACLU and Anaheim Community Activists, who brought the issue to it’s head two years ago.

The Orange County Register reports that Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait says, “the cost of fighting the lengthy lawsuit could have been avoided if the City Council in August 2012 had approved his call for similar ballot measure.”

The two councilmembers joined with then-Councilman Harry Sidhu in 2012 as council majority stubbornly rejected Mayor Tait’s proposal.

The issue centers around Latino activists who echoed the need to change how councilmembers are elected from at-large to districts, because no Latino currently sits on the dais and 52% of the community are Latinos.

The settlement was agreed upon from a case Moreno, et al. vs. City of Anaheim that was slated to go to trail on March 17, 2014 regarding the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).

The Voice of OC reported that Councilmember Murray called the deal “a win for our citizens, for our residents, for the taxpayers of Anaheim.”

Ironically, the Orange County Register reports that Councilmember Murray says, “I am still opposed to a form of single-member district election. I think this lawsuit and the fees attached to it are unfortunate for this city.”

In the January 8th, 2014 edition of The Anaheim Blog contributor Matthew Cunningham asserts that the ACLU and Jose Moreno are at fault for costing the taxpayers huge legal bills: “The fault lies with the plaintiffs’ stubborn insistence on bypassing the voters in favor of the imposition of single-member districts by judicial fiat.”

Frankly, Mr. Cunningham forgets that Councilmembers Murray and Eastman have an fiduciary duty to protect the city’s assets such as taxpayer funds and settle the issue back in 2012 as suggested by Mayor Tait to let the voters decide how their councilmembers are elected.

Councilmembers Murray and Eastman should realize that the buck stops with them and they have the power by finding a consensus with Mayor Tait instead of fighting against him and the community.

Harkey Gains Major Endorsement with Support of BOE Incumbent Michelle Steel

(Sacramento, CA) – Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel announced Monday her support for Diane Harkey to replace her on the Board. Steel is retiring due to term limits and is running for Orange County Supervisor. Michelle Steel joins a long list of Harkey supporters, including:

I was working on a database of the part affiliation of all Orange County local elected officials. Finally, I have completed the project with all of the special districts and county seats being added. I also fixed some errors in the previous versions (here, here, and here) and have combined the database into one post.

We have added a button on the menu bar for our readers to always be able to access this database and use it for whatever research/political needs that they may have. Due to the length of th epost you are going to have to click the below link to read the rest of the post.

We are adding a new feature to our humble blog. Readers will soon be able to go to one location to find campaign finance data on all 2012 candidates for local elected office. As far as I can tell no other website currently has this information. While this project will take a while and we will be releasing one city at a time (if we get some donor support) it should be well worth it. Here is a little sample for you to glance at:

We are looking for donors to help us fund this project for every City, School District, and Special District in Orange County. Please send an e-mail to info@custom-campaigns.com if you want to help sponsor this project.

These candidates took in less than $1,000 in contributions thus making them eligible to file a much more simplified disclosure form that does not have donors listed on it:

Duane Roberts
Jennifer Rivera
Rodolfo “Rudy” Gaono
Linda Linder

Here are the rest of the candidates along with a pie chart showing what percentage of their money came from each category of entities:

Jordan Brandman

Total $$$

Individuals

$ 32,739.00

Unions

$ 18,950.00

Businesses

$ 25,929.51

Trade Associations

$ 9,100.00

Political

$ 6,042.27

Total

$ 92,760.78

Steve Lodge

Total $$$

Individuals

$ 14,985.00

Union

$ 1,800.00

Businesses

$ 17,399.00

Trade Association

$ 7,050.00

Political

$ 1,800.00

Total

$ 43,034.00

Brian Chuchua

Total $$$

Individuals

$ 269.00

Union

$ –

Businesses

$ 500.00

Trade Association

$ 250.00

Political

$ –

Total

$ 1,019.00

Lucille Kring

Total $$$

Individuals

$ 14,975.00

Unions

$ –

Businesses

$ 30,514.00

Trade Associations

$ 5,300.00

Political

$ 1,000.00

Total

$ 51,789.00

John Leos

Total $$$

Individuals

$ 9,046.00

Unions

$ 10,000.00

Businesses

$ 3,600.00

Trade Associations

$ 1,800.00

Political

$ 500.00

Total

$ 24,946.00

If you click the link to read more, you can find out who each individual donor was to each campaign broken down by category.

Please note that a couple of races could potentially change based on a close finish and not all votes being counted. This post will be added to our website in a permanent tab that we will be creating at the top of the site.

In her e-newsletter yesterday, Anaheim Councilmember Kris Murray published this response to the op-ed by Mayor Tom Tait published in yesterday’s Orange County Register (it was very, very unusual for the OC Register to provide space for a campaign endorsement op-ed the day before an election):

In an op-ed to bolster his endorsed candidates, Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait irresponsibly compares investment in Anaheim’s resort district to the failed Solyndra solar power deal and says that such investment amounts to “sweetheart deals” and pandering to “special interests.” Does it really need to be said again that forward looking economic investment is is what makes Anaheim unique among cities. Or that our city’s 60-year, mutually beneficial partnership with Orange County’s largest employer is not a special interest?

The truth is that public-private partnerships with the resort district have allowed Anaheim to balance the budget with cash reserves at a time when other cities are bankrupt. Investment in parks, libraries and gang reduction programs are being made at a time when other cities are contracting out basic services they can no longer afford to provide. Mayor Tait’s claim that the Garden Walk economic assistance program is a $158 million give-away is false. In fact, the city’s data is very clear that the action taken by the council earlier this year to amend a long-standing program for $40 million in additional tax reduction was designed to secure a $300 million, four-star hotel development. The Garden Walk hotels will actually raise $187 million over 20 years in new revenue to the city’s general fund – funding that will support police, fire, parks, libraries without raising taxes on our residents or businesses. I encourage Anaheim residents to learn more about the city’s long-standing economic assistance programs on the city’s web page at http://www.anaheim.net/articlenew2222.asp?id=1520.

It’s been said that the OC Register is staunchly Libertarian, supposedly pro-business and supportive of sound fiscal policies, but their attacks on the resorts and on council policy are now becoming a pattern. When I attempted to rebut anti-business language in another recent editorial, I was given 250 words buried a week later under the day’s letters. The placement of a nearly full page op-ed, the day before the election, is clearly an orchestrated effort by the Register’s editorial staff to take aim at Anaheim’s business community – and completes an unprecedented campaign by the Register to impact the outcome of Anaheim’s elections for the mayor’s endorsed candidates. In his op-ed, Mayor Tait claims to be a “free market guy.” Why then are the business community, the resort district, the Anaheim Chamber, OC Tax, Orange County Business Council, community leaders, and many more, endorsing the two opponents facing Mayor Tait’s candidates? Why is the mayor endorsing a candidate who is a vocal supporter of gate taxes at Disneyland, Honda Center and Angels Stadium? I think it’s time that balanced reporting is done on the impacts of Anaheim’s stadium and resort districts – not just in our city, but countywide.

In Anaheim, we’re focusing on improving our community, torn apart not by special interests but by those who support change ushered in with violence and hatred. Politicians who support these anti-Anaheim voices aren’t pragmatic and independent. They’re desperate.

151,311 voters live in the City of Anaheim: 10,196 voters live in Ed Royce’s 39th Congressional District, 27,431 live in John Campbell’s 45th Congressional District, and 113,684 live in Loretta Sanchez’s 46th Congressional District. You’ve seen Emami’s endless mail count on the Anaheim City Council race, but he has the good fortune to be one of the 27,431 Anaheim voters in CD-45. This is a tale of the mailboxes for the 10,196 Anaheim voters in CD-39.

(For those of you wondering, Gail Eastman lives in Sanchez’s CD-46, Harry Sidhu lives in Royce’s CD-39, and Lorri Galloway, Kris Murray, and Tom Tait live in Campbell’s CD-45. For those of you wondering for even more info, Steve Chavez Lodge lives in Campbell’s CD-45 while Lucille Kring, John Leos, and Jordan Brandman all live in Sanchez’s CD-46.)

Before I get into the mail, I should note there are precinct walkers and phone bankers from both camps scurrying and calling across CD-39.

An OC Political friend passed on a transcript he made of a phone call he received from the Jay Chen campaign in October. The content of this script is clearly geared toward Republicans, and the OC Political friend who transcribed this call is a high-propensity Republican in a pure Republican household.

Here’s the transcript…

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Andrew and I am a volunteer with the Jay Chen for Congress Campaign.

I’m calling you today to tell you a little bit about Jay and about his campaign for congress in your district.

Jay is a small businessman, a school board member and US Naval Reserves intelligence officer who is running to represent you in Congress.

Unlike his opponent, Ed Royce, Jay volunteered to serve our country and he will protect our veterans when they come home.

Jay was recruited right out of Harvard University to work for Bain and Company, a section of the successful Bain Capital, and he has valuable experience balancing the books and improving results without raising taxes.

Jay is clearly the right person to serve this district in Washington. For more information about Jay or our campaign, please visit our website at chenforcongress.com. And since you are registered to vote by mail your ballots will be arriving around October 8th. Please remember to vote and sent them back in.

Thank you for very much your time and I hope you vote for Jay in the upcoming November election.

In 2002 Jay joined Bain & Company, a global business consulting firm. While at Bain he worked closely with top executives of Fortune 500 companies to develop and implement crucial business strategies. He managed the roll-out and evaluation of new products for a global logistics company and analyzed the cost-savings for a mergers and acquisition in the technology space with a combined value of over $1 billion. Jay believes his financial and business experience will be of great value to the school board, which manages an operating budget of over $360 million dollars and nearly 3000 employees.

Anyone else find it fun that Democrat Jay Chen is touting his Bain experience while Republican Mitt Romney is getting trashed for his Bain experienced by national Democrats?

Now, on to the money: From July 1 to October 17, Royce spent $1,232,479 while Chen spent $406,351. However, Super PAC America Shining (run by Chen’s brother) has spent $762,316, with $65,894 supporting Chen and $696,162 against Royce.

In other words, between America Shining and Jay Chen, the pro-Chen/anti-Royce spending since July 1 has reached $1,458,478 while Ed Royce has spent $1,232,479.

For both candidates, over 60% of their direct contributions came from individual citizens. However, if you account for America Shining, the pro-Chen/anti-Royce money received has been 52% from PACs, and 33% from individual citizens, while pro-Royce/anti-Chen money that’s been received is 62% from individual citizens and 36% from PACs.

While Emami religiously scans each piece of mail that falls into his hand, I’m just going to take a picture of all the mail. For my father, who is likely in the most coveted demographic group in all of CD-39 (high-propensity Asian independent), this is what $2.7 million of campaign spending looks like:

My poor father was inundated with CD-39 mail

He’s received 36 mailers, and there’s still three more mailing days before Election Day (today, tomorrow, and Monday). I “only” received 15 mailers, and my Republican mother “only” received 8 mailers. Inexplicably, my independent sister only got 1 mailer (it was pro-Royce).

I should note my 52-year-old father was not pleased to receive the America Shining piece entitled, “Senior News.”

Here are other ways to look at the 36 mailers sent to Dad:

Stacked on top of each other, they are 1/2 inch thick.

They weigh a combined 1 lb. 7 oz.

Laid end to end, they are 41 feet, 3 inches long.

They have achieved near-perfect parity in Dad’s collection:

18 from Royce’s side, 18 from Chen’s side

6 pro-Royce, 4 pro-Chen

12 anti-Chen, 14 anti-Royce

From my father’s mail: For every pro-Royce, there were exactly two anti-Chen pieces. For every pro-Chen piece, there were more than three anti-Royce pieces. While both sides have sent virtually the same amount of mail and both have been pretty negative, Chen’s side has sent out more negative mail and less positive mail than Royce’s side.

Apparently, as registered Republicans, my mother and I were each ignored by Chen. All 15 of my mailers and all 8 of hers were from Royce. I received 6 pro-Royce and 9 anti-Chen. Mom received 2 pro-Royce and 6 anti-Chen.

The anti-Chen pieces are making an impact on regular voters: one of my mother’s co-workers dislikes Chen because he seems so creepy because he’s always behind sunglasses in his pictures. None of Chen’s photos have him behind sunglasses, except the one being used on Royce’s anti-Chen pieces.

In CD-39, postal workers and mailhouses are getting together to throw a big party about the post offices saved from closure and the mailhouses’ unexpected 2012 profits, but somewhere, there’s an environmentalist crying about the forests that Chen and Royce destroyed.

On a final note, my father’s siding with the family Republicans: Dad’s voting for Royce.